Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Leeds Town Hall/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 25 April 2020 [1].

Leeds Town Hall edit

Nominator(s): Rcsprinter123 (sermonise) 03:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys. This is the first time I have entered the FAC process, so please be compassionate with your review. I’ve been working for a while on this article for Leeds Town Hall, one of the largest in the UK and a major heritage building in the city. I’ve expanded it considerably from the state I found it in to start with, just adding information from sources (mostly print books) as and when I have had time. It turns out that doing this is incredibly educational and interesting, at least for me, and so with those sources I eventually plan to create a featured topic named “Architecture of Leeds”, encompassing that article, the Town Hall, and local buildings and architects. The only start I have on that was taking Elinor Lupton Centre to GA last year.

Anyway, I’m fairly pleased with the article as it stands today. One thing I probably want to change is the title of the “Appraisal” section, to a word which means “things people said to demonstrate how important it is”, but the right word hasn’t occurred to me yet. Suggestions on general formatting, sentence structures, refs etc are welcomed. Rcsprinter123 (sermonise) 03:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks very interesting and, though Neo-Classical, it is indeed a fine Victorian building. I shall certainly come back to review. Two immediate thoughts: would Appreciation do as a replacement for Appraisal; and, in my experience of FAs about buildings, reviewers prefer the History to come first, followed by the Description and Appraisal. I originally had Chartwell in exactly the order you have here, but two very experienced reviewers preferred it flipped, and I think they were right. KJP1 (talk) 06:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Two other things struck me on first read-through. James Rhodes, On this Day in Leeds - Lulu publishing is a bit of a red flag, and I can’t make the ISBN work. Nor can I find it on Worldcat. Is it self-published? If it is, that may cause a Wikipedia:Reliable sources concern. Do you actually use it? I’m not seeing it in the refs. But I may have missed it. Second; while you’ve used Wrathmell’s Leeds PAG, I suspect the Leach/Pevsner revised Yorkshire West Riding: Leeds, Bradford and The North, will have some additional material. I can go through it to see what it has or, alternatively, I can email you photos of the relevant pages. Let me know. KJP1 (talk) 07:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick response, KJP1. I'll give you a few replies now. On the section naming, Appreciation might sound like it's only about positivity rather than significance and influence too. But what I can't understand so well is the History/Description order. Surely the reader (who we should assume knows next to nothing about the topic when beginning to read) would like to know what the building looks like and consists of before getting into the detailed whats and whys of how it came to be. I don't want to disagree with architectural FA precedent, but it seems illogical to me. Then on the Rhodes source, it's true that the self-published book isn't a very strong one and shouldn't really be allowed to stay, but it was the only thing I could find about the lions being modelled at London Zoo which I seem to remember was always in there unsourced and apparently true. I guess we can just remove the statement and leave only the Topham source to ref the lions moving (20th C section). Finally on Pevsner, I must say that it wasn't very useful in finding things that weren't already said in other sources, and that's including in the original 1967 Pevsner West Riding copy I found at the library. However, if you think there's possibly more to be got, there's no harm in taking a look if you have the book. Rcsprinter123 (spiel) 15:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose from John M Wolfson edit

Welcome to the FAC process! I'll be looking around this article, and intend to take WikiCup points for this review.

  • a design by architect Cuthbert Brodrick I have absolutely no issue with false titles, but I thought they weren't as common in British English.
  • It was planned to include law courts, ... This seems a bit clunky, IMO. Perhaps "designed" could be used in its place?
  • "to a design by... It was designed" possibly overuses the word. R
  • The hatnote in the "Description" section should perhaps be replaced with {{Commons cat}} in the External Links section.
  • I know this is unconventional, but I really feel that readers should get an extra push to see all the fine detail on Commons when they could miss the link in the External links section. R
  • Until 1813, the Moot Hall, on Briggate was the seat of the Leeds Corporation and was used for judicial purposes from 1615. Should be reworded.
  • Perhaps inflation figures could be included for historical figures with {{Inflation}}, but this is hardly fatal to the FAC.
  • Had a go with this with a few key figures. R
  • ending the potential situation where a public concert may happen simultaneously while prisoners are being held. That this would be brought up seems a bit like original research to me, a reliable source that explicitly says this should be cited.
  • The "Present usage" section should be renamed "Present use".
  • There are many articles that are linked multiple times within the article, such as Woodhouse Moor, Potts of Leeds, etc. This is not best practice on Wikipedia, and this tool helps you remove them.

Overall this looks rather nice, and I'll look more into it later. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hey, sorry about my great delay. Per the coordinator note below, and taking another look at this, I'm afraid I am unable to support promotion at this time. Just running through it a bit, there are still prose issues such as Until 1813, the seat of Leeds Corporation was the Moot Hall of 1618, on Briggate, which was also used for judicial purposes. and A council committee (What's that?). Please do not take this personally (I've myself failed quite a few FACs, including my first), and I might very well be willing to support this once it gets passed through stuff such as a Good Article review or a peer review (though peer reviews currently have a backlog IIRC). I hope you've received this experience well, and you are keen on submitting more FACs in the future! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM edit

Welcome to FAC! I've no particular interest in municipal architecture, but I'm local (York) and have visited the building for a vegan fayre, so there's a (minimal) personal connection! Only a few minutes, but I'll start reading through. (I am participating in the WikiCup, but I'll only claim points if I "finish" the review.)

  • I wonder if you jump in with the history a little too quick? Maybe say what it is before jumping in to when it was built. See WP:FIRSTSENTENCE.
  • You mention the Grade I listing in the lead, infobox, and categories, but not in the article proper.
  • I'm surprised to see the see also to Wikimedia Commons. I thought external links like that were discouraged... Is there something in the MOS supporting this use?
  • Paragraph 1 of the "description" section feels too rhetorical/superlative. It doesn't really read as Wikipedia's "neutral" voice. Third paragraph too, to a lesser extent. And paragraph 1 of the sculpture subsection.
  • What does "pilaster" mean? Wikilink? rosso antico? capitals? tympanum? Beware jargon!
  • "originally the 'Great Hall'" Why single quotes? Also "or 'central charge office',"
  • False titles are non-standard in British English, and beware MOS:LQ; I've fixed them when I've seen them.
  • Slightly tricky writing in the sculpture section: "Catherine Mawer who lived in Oxford Place close by", "were being worked on by her husband Robert Mawer,[1] between 1853 and 1854, when he died".
  • "It was a new status symbol, and ever wishing to compete with Bradford, calls grew within Leeds for a new town hall." Grammar; "calls" are were not "ever wishing". "...ever wishing to compete with Bradford, the people of Leeds..." or something may be better.
  • "in the midle of their hitherto" Typo? Or [sic]? I'm not sure if this passage meets the expectations of MOS:LQ. Is the "if" at the start of the quote the start of a sentence in the original source?
  • I can confirm that "if" is part of the quote. "midle" was a typo! R
  • Do we have a picture of Moot Hall? That'd add some nice visual interest to the "background" section. This would be great, if it's the right thing!
  • No image of it on Commons as yet, but certainly an idea. I think that artwork would be OK for upload, being c.1825? R

Ok, stopping there. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "This site was on the edge of the town centre of the time, but required a large parcel of land that was unavailable in the congested central streets" I'm struggling - in what way did "this site" require a large parcel of land.
  • ""unwise and expedient to proceed with the Hall"" Is that the correct quote? Surely they meant inexpedient?
  • "'Instructions to Architects'", "'crowning glory'"; Again, why the single quotes?
  • These are to indicate that these are descriptions bestowed by others, not the article. Changed to normal quote marks. R
  • "However, only sixteen entries were received, which were fewer than expected" was?
  • "No public building had so huge had been erected in the town before." ?
  • Second paragraph of the "Building works" section: Again, I'm wondering about MOS:LQ.
  • That's a quote within a quote. Not good? R
  • "(now considered part of its picturesque character but which caused alarm when they started to sprout)" Again, this doesn't feel like Wikipedia's neutral voice. There are other issues in that paragraph.
  • Removed "picturesque" and made less brochurey. R
  • I think the paragraph beginning "Whatever doubts the council" needs revisiting (sorry). Again, the language is a little flowery.
  • Tweaked. Finding it hard to remove rhetorical language without affecting factuality. R
  • "and the Council had to find extra funding at a time when there was great poverty among Leeds's working classes." Reference?

Stopping again - sorry this is so bitty. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for combing through, John M Wolfson and Josh Milburn. I've made amendments to the article and crossed out the items above that are dealt with, and replied individually to some. Rcsprinter123 (message) 00:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The design was revised many times during the construction, such as the inclusion of an organ" The grammar is off here. The inclusion of an organ is an example of a revision, but you don't use that word, you use revised. "There were many revisions, such as" would work. Alternatively, you want something like "The design was revised, for example, an organ was included".
  • Amended. R
  • "they started to sprout" Too informal
  • Tried "first appeared". R
  • "Leeds considered the" Who does Leeds refer to, here?
  • I've put that as the council because they arranged the subsequent celebrations. R
  • "who successfully managed to express Leeds's increasing wealth and importance" On what grounds are you saying they were "successful"? Is this a neutral claim?
  • Removed unnecessary word. R
  • "often a symbol of Leeds" Used as? Presented as?
  • Changed to "used". R
  • "earliest of its time" How can something be earliest of its time? I don't understand this claim.
  • Just "earliest" now. R
  • I was interested to see what part of Peaky Blinders was filmed at the Town Hall - as best as I can see, your source does not support the claim that Peaky Blinders (or, indeed, the other programmes listed) was filmed at the Hall. I think this underlines the need for a close source review.
  • I believe the source backs this up. Although it renders a bit strangely in the archive, close to the bottom, it clearly states "Productions filmed here: [the four programmes mentioned in article]". I don't think you could find exactly which scenes from each were filmed there without watching the shows through, but that could be OR. R
  • "Another significant appropriation of its form – the square plan with a neoclassical design and tower – is Parliament House, Melbourne (1856),[85][86] as are other colonial examples such as Parliament House, Adelaide (1880s), and in South Africa, Cape Town City Hall (1893) and Durban City Hall (1885)." "As are"? I'm struggling with this sentence.
  • Another appropriation is Parliament House, as are other examples, XYZ. I think this is the correct plural form. Are the subclauses getting in the way of it making clear sense? R
  • "On the tower, he was more hesitant to praise," Again, struggling.
  • Reworded. R
  • Rhodes is in your bibliography but not cited.
  • Must have neglected to remove from bibliography when non-RS cites replaced. Gone now. R

I'm sorry this has been so bitty - and I'm sorry to say that I don't think I can support right now. I think there were some writing issues, some neutrality issues, and problems with the one source I checked. Certainly not enough to oppose, but I do suspect there will be room for further improvement as other reviewers contribute - and I do think that a close source check will be a necessity. (Please double-check my edits.) Josh Milburn (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to extra points above. Josh, I'm grateful for all the feedback and for your copyedits. I shall remember for future times that there are extra steps to take regarding getting reviews of the writing and sourcing before nominating FAC. Rcsprinter123 (articulate) 20:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from KJP1 edit

Starting properly, but it'll take more than a day.

General
  • History or Description first? - I see your point, and it is , of course, your call. You have precedent, but I can see the strength of the opposing view.
  • Revised Pevsner - You're right, the text in the 2009 Yorkshire: West Riding - Leeds, Bradford and The North, seems an, almost exact?, lift from the Derek Linstrum text in the 2008 Leeds PAG. I'll go through, but doubt it will throw up much.
  • Peer review - for an article that's not previously been GA, from a first-time nominator, you may have found Peer review helpful. But it's not a deal-breaker for FAC. And one other suggestion - sorry, not meaning to be preachy - I got very firmly told off on one of my early FAs when I struck through reviewers’ comments. I think the convention is to have the reviewer strike through when they’re satisfied with the response.
  • Thanks, KJP1. I won't strike any more points from now. R
Infobox
  • Updated. R
Lead
  • A little short for the body? Perhaps something more on the building history/style
  • "With the building of the Civic Hall in 1933 some of these functions moved away" - not of their own accord, I think. Perhaps, "were relocated"?
  • Updated. R
  • "the Town Hall now functions" - perhaps, "operates", to avoid the close proximity to the previous "functions"?
  • Changed to "serves". R
  • "It became a Grade I listed building in 1951" - again, not of its own accord. "It was designated"?
  • Updated. R
  • "as the civic leaders sought to make an even grander statement despite the poverty in the city at the time" - I don't get the suggested connection. The civic leaders' desire to make an ever-grander statement doesn't seem to me to have existed despite the undoubted poverty. The only linked reference I can see in the main body almost suggests that the city's poverty was a spur: "if a noble municipal palace that might fairly view with some of the best Town Halls of the Continent were to be erected in the middle of their hitherto squalid and unbeautiful town, it would become a practical admonition". Is this a bit POV?
  • Split the sentences to remove the connection.
Description
  • Media link - I also (see above) find this a bit jarring. Would it not sit better at the end with the other media link?
  • I share JM's concern re. the adjectival/subjective language. In the first para. we have "commanding", "deeply", "huge", "immense", "unique". Are these all from Cite 2? If they are, would they be better as quotes, so we know whose views they are? And is the first sentence also a quote? N.B. the language issue isn't confined to this para. And are there really no other domed clock towers? Anywhere? I suspect there are. [File:0011Tarrant County Courthouse Clock Tower E Fort Worth Texas.jpg], [File:London Greenwich.JPG], [File:Council-House-Nottingham.jpg]. Both Pevsner and PAG suggest this as the inspiration, St Philip's Cathedral, Birmingham.
  • I couldn't find anywhere that the first sentence is a quote from. As for the adjectives, I'm fairly sure they're not quoted either, but I would not say they are overly problematic, they are just ways to describe those elements. Cite 2 (Webster) is only for the tower not being in first design, so PAG added for earlier description. Points taken about not being so unique. R
  • "This striking internal decoration to the design of the London decorator John Crace, cut-glass chandelier and the then-largest organ in Europe led one writer to say that it was "the best place in Britain to see what it looked like on the inside of a wedding cake"." This sentence is packing a lot in, and doesn't quite flow for me. Perhaps something like: "The decoration (remove 'striking') was by the decorator John Crace and, combined with the cut-glass chandeliers (plural as there were 10, now three - maybe with a footnote) and the then-largest organ in Europe, led one writer...."
  • Amended, but not complicated futher with 3->10 detail. R
  • "The frescoes adorning the domed ceiling of the vestibule was the first attempt..." Doesn't quite work.
  • Changed. R
  • "as the gift of Sir Peter Fairbairn" - perhaps introduced him as the then-mayor?
  • Changed. R
  • "The Town Hall provided accommodation..." is this para. not covered in History?
  • No, but seems an OK place for it here. R
Sculpture
  • "It has a heavily rusticated base" - I know you mean the Town Hall, but it's not quite clear.
  • Changed. R
  • "giant Corinthian order of columns" - "orders of giant Corinthian columns"?
  • Changed. R
  • Linked in previous section, don't want to duplink. R
  • Prose - as per JM, I do think this section needs a bit of work. There are some odd, dangling endings, "close by", "when he died", "he was not a sculptor".
  • I'll be returning to look at this section. R
History - Background
  • "Until 1813, the seat of Leeds Corporation was the moot hall of 1618" - link moot hall and I'm not sure it needs caps.
  • Linked, but it is a proper noun like "the Town Hall". R
  • "The neighbouring "wool capital of the world", Bradford, took the lead..." - I'm assuming the whole of this para. is supported by Linstrum's p.17? It's slightly puzzling that neither the Pevsner nor Linstrum's Leeds PAG entry mentions Leeds v Bradford rivalry as a spur? The PAG mentions Leeds v Sheffield/Wakefield over which should be the county assize town. Hunt does mention it (p=184).
  • Briggs makes a big deal out of the Bradford rivalry as well as Linstrum. I've put that in as another source for the paragraph. R
  • "In July 1851, it presented a report, with consultees including Joseph Paxton, the designer of The Crystal Palace, and delegations to other large towns including Manchester and Liverpool to investigate their plans for building public halls" - not quite getting where the delegations fit in to the report? Is it something like; "In July 1851, it presented a report, with consultees including Joseph Paxton, the designer of The Crystal Palace, and submissions/contributions from delegations that had been sent to other large towns including Manchester and Liverpool to investigate their plans for building public halls"?
  • Moved it around. R
  • "The report's recommendations also identified a site for the hall" - not sure what the 'also' is doing? You've not listed other recommendations.
  • Removed. R
  • "However, the scheme did not secure universal backing immediately" - perhaps, "The scheme did not immediately secure universal backing", removing the "However" at the beginning, which some reviewers are likely not to like, and the 'hanging' immediately at the end?
  • Removed "however", but I think the "immediately" indicates that the council later did later show full support. R
  • "This and other motions to limit its cost were defeated by a small majority, but this demonstrates that financial prudence was a strong desire among some Victorian local politicians, who disliked spending without proof of genuine advantages" - the "this"/"this" doesn't quite work for me, and the plural motions probably need to be defeated by "small majorities". Perhaps something like; "This, and other motions to limit its costs, were defeated by small majorities, but they demonstrated that financial prudence was a strong compulsion for some Victorian local politicians, who disliked incurring civic expense without genuine proof of public advantage"?
  • Updated. R
  • "malcontent ratepayers" - a rather obscure word which won't help the wider readership. "Dissatisfied"?
  • Changed. R
  • "to discard its image of being a backwater with no architectural heft.[23]" - And "heft" is another oddity. Perhaps, "an architectural backwater with no/few buildings of merit"? Or some such. And we've no page number in the cite. It's p=185.
  • Thank you. Google Books doesn't show any page numbers for Hunt for some reason. R
History - Design
  • General - there are a number of short para.s here that could usefully be combined, e.g. the 2nd/3rd/4th and 5th.
  • Combined 2nd and 3rd. R
  • "an open competition, a common method of selecting architects for important buildings in the 19th century" - if you want a cite for this, you could use, Victorian Architectural Competitions - An Index to British and Irish Architectural Competitions in The Builder, 1843-1900, Roger H. Harper, 1983, Mansell Publishing, isbn=0-7201-1685-6, loc=Introduction.
  • Added. R
  • "Even the monumental edifice of St George's Hall, Liverpool, only contained a public hall and assize courts" - St. George's Hall actually has a public hall, courts, and a "small concert hall".{Wrathmell (Linstrum)|2008|p=64}.
  • Updated per source. R
  • "though it is likely there was no thought it would be anything but classical" - perhaps, "the use of the, then prevalent, Neoclassical style being the unwritten assumption"?
  • Changed. R
  • "However, only sixteen entries were received" - redundant "However".
  • Done. R
  • "...the Council's non-commitment to employing a winning design. This did not mean toleration of a lower standard" - sorry, not getting the meaning of this. Does the last part of the first sentence mean the council did not commit to employing the winning designer, or to using the winning design? Neither is unknown, but it needs clarifying. And the last sentence I cannot work out at all.
  • Changed to "winning architect". Does this clarify? R
Sorry - still not getting the last sentence. Small number of entries but still high quality? Says who? KJP1 (talk) 07:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just removed the last sentence as it's non-critical and possibly a matter of opinion. Rcsprinter123 (articulate) 20:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Brodrick's design was in the Roman Corinthian style of architecture" - not sure the "of architecture" in necessary. More crucially, who uses the term "Roman Corinthian"? Brodrick? Webster? Not Linstrum, as far as I can see. Given we're already called it Classical/Neoclasscial/Baroque and Linstrum calls it French Neoclassical, I think we need to know who's calling it RC.
  • DK where that came from. Updated to be more specific about what's Roman. R
  • "The Town Hall Committee initially had reservations after selecting Brodrick, asking Charles Barry for an affirmation in Brodrick's abilities in the construction of such a large building, mostly relating to him being so young;" - perhaps, "asking Barry for confirmation of Brodrick's abilities"? And the "mostly relating" clause belongs after the first clause, i.e. "The Town Hall Committee initially had reservations after selecting Brodrick, mostly related to his youth, and asked Barry for confirmation of Broderick's abilities...… Barry responded with high praise..."
  • Updated. R
  • "a clause in Brodrick's contract stating that he would receive no payment beyond that of the accepted estimate of £39,000 if the work costs exceeded it." - this isn't clear to me. I'm assuming he's being paid a %, not the initial £39K which is the budget. Thus, is the clause stating he'll only get a percentage of costs up to £35K, and nothing for any costs over and above this? And was it enforced? If it was, CB must have ended up hugely out of pocket, given the final cost was 4 times the estimate.
  • The source (Briggs) reveals there was a qualification to this clause that it wouldn't apply if costs increased outside of Brodrick's control, which is evidently what happened. But you're right, it only makes sense if you know this, so added. R
  • "No public building so huge had been erected in the town before" - another instance of slightly hyperbolic language. Would "large" not meet the need?
  • Changed. R
Construction - Building works
  • "the building contract was awarded to Samuel Atack, a Leeds builder and bricklayer, and Benjamin Musgrave, a dyer" - do any of the sources tell us what construction experience a dyer had? I don't have the Briggs.
  • Briggs literally just says Atack in association with Musgrave, a dyer. I don't know why dyeing has anything to do with it, but he was apparently joint contractor and considered notable enough in the book. P 166 is his only mention. R
  • "both elements eventually turned out to have been forlornly underestimated" - "forlornly" is rather odd. "sadly", "greatly"?
  • Yes, "greatly" works better. R
  • "Rawdon Hill stone was favoured for those parts of the building on which there would be carving" - The Sculpture section links here, Rawdon, West Yorkshire, for Rawdon Hill millstone grit but now we're taken here, Rawdon Billing. Which is better?
  • Standardised to Rawdon Billing. R
  • "Brodrick never shied from asking for additional sums to make his perfec his building, so was fortunate there to be a council majority for building - something awry here.
  • Fixed. R
  • 1st Tower para. - two things. Might be worth mentioning that Barry suggested one (Pevsner/p=411). And the concluding phrase, "would provide the building with beauty beyond mere utilitarianism", doesn't sound very encyclopedic. Is it Briggs? If so, you should say so.
  • Barry included. Heaton said those last two words; now quoted. R
  • "However, it is likely that Brodrick designed a tower before building even started" - is the "however" needed?
  • Removed. R
  • "Whatever doubts the council might have had in the early days" - there's quite a lot of POV/peacock language here; "unprecedented lavish", "participated actively", "delicately painted", "creatively devised". And I can't get my head round; "Though Brodrick's red Morocco upholstered furnishings and the original gallery were removed in the 1930s, there is a characteristic example of a form of decoration within the Classical framework which evidently appealed to Brodrick". What's the "there is" referring to? And what is a "classical framework"?
  • Some words changed, sentence clarified. R
  • "Leeds Town Hall was subject to much criticism during its construction" - this opening suggests the criticism will then be detailed - but it isn't. What's given are details of cost escalations. That's fine, but the opening needs revision to reflect what follows.
  • Made clear that criticism is about cost. R
Construction - Later changes
  • "then with the placing of the four sculpted lions along the south front, also in 1867" - the "also in 1867" hangs rather. Perhaps, "beginning with Brodrick suggesting in 1867 that a larger skylight be put in each of the courts,[1] and then, later in the same year, the placing of the four sculpted lions along the south front."
  • Changed. R
  • "Brodrick's final touches to the Town Hall, they were" - this isn't clear to me. "the lions were"?
  • Changed. R
  • "they were the work of William Day Keyworth Jr of Hull and each is made from two pieces of Portland stone with zig-zag joints" - we flip from past to present tense, and what is a zig-zag joint?
  • Now present tense. There's no article on a zig-zag joint, but it's in the source. Surely the reader can work out that the two pieces of stone fit into each other in a zig-zag pattern. R
  • "Evidence of Brodrick's early interest in lion sculptures is documented in travel sketches from Brodrick's European tour" - replace the 2nd Brodrick with "his"?
  • Changed. R
  • "while windows on the Calverley Street and Victoria Square corner were altered from three to five" - perhaps, "while the number of windows on the Calverley Street and Victoria Square corner was increased from three to five"?
  • Changed. R
  • "In 1907, a new grand stair was built down to the crypt" - what is the crypt, not, I think, previously mentioned, and what on earth did they do down there? I don't think town halls generally have crypts. Vaults / basements / cellars?
  • Changed to basement, as mentioned elsewhere in article. R
  • "At the same time the curved entrance steps were changed back to a straight set" - when were they previously changed to curved? Have I missed that?
  • Yes, they were but that was omitted. Updated. R
Opening
  • "Despite the wild cost overruns Leeds considered it a great investment and celebrated its new " - "wild"'s a little baroque in tone, and I think the "it" should be "Town Hall".
  • Changed. R
  • "was officially opened by Queen Victoria and Albert" - Prince Albert?
  • Changed. R
  • "the British Association for the Advancement of Science held its annual meeting in Leeds" - "there", or "at the Town Hall"?
  • I think this is OK. It was held in Leeds, which they had long wanted and now the TH made it possible, i.e. they held it at the TH. R
20th century
  • "In 1993, Leeds Crown Court opened on Westgate, ending the Town Hall's role as a courthouse, as did the Town Hall's police station and cells (Bridewell)" - the end of this sentence doesn't quite work. Does it mean the TH's role as a police station also ended? In which case, perhaps, "In 1993, Leeds Crown Court opened on Westgate, ending the Town Hall's role as a courthouse. Its police station and cells (Bridewell) were closed at the same time"?
  • Changed. R
  • "This was not before a heated debate" - the "heated" debate sounds a bit Mrs Merton. "This was strongly opposed by the Leeds Civic Trust which preferred that its blackness..."?
  • Changed. R
  • "The four lions on plinths across the Town Hall entrance have entered local folklore" - I'm afraid I dislike this bit of urban folklore, rather as I loathe mentions of ghosts in building articles! Both sources are weak, and I'd lose it unless you can find better.
  • It is weak sourcing, so removed. I wouldn't be surprised if a local resident doesn't add it back again before too long though; it's very common within reminicences about the building. R
21st century
  • "The planned three-year works encompass new seating and soundproofing.." - as per my comment on the infobox. And would "will provide/include" be clearer than "encompass"? You'd then need to tweak "updating two chandeliers" to something like "modifications to.."
  • I believe the works have already started, so mixing up future and present doesn't seem right. "Encompass" and "updating" changed. R
  • "curated with a group of young people" - "curated with" reads oddly to me. "assembled by"?
  • Changed. R
Present usage
  • "Leeds Town Hall has been used for filming several films" - rather than "filming films" perhaps, "Leeds Town Hall has been used as a location for several films..."?
  • Changed. R
Appraisal
  • As discussed above, I'd personally prefer Appreciation, which doesn't, in this sense, imply only positive comment. But no deal breaker.
  • The first two sentences read like personal opinion. Are they supported by the cites?
  • I don't think the first sentence can be cited as such. Isn't the length of the bibliography evidence of the fact? Removed final part of second sentence and added cite. R
  • "as are other colonial examples such as Parliament House, Adelaide (1880s), and in South Africa, Cape Town City Hall (1893) and Durban City Hall (1885)" - I think these claims need specific citing.
  • Added. R
  • "Additionally, many Americans reportedly travelled to Leeds especially to see the Town Hall, which some venerated as highly as medieval cathedrals" - this sounds a very 'Victorian' observation. I cannot believe modern American visitors do so. Can this be clarified and a cite provided.
  • Added "after its opening" to date the statement. It's covered by Linstrum 1978 at the end of the para. R
  • Despite it being called Appraisal, rather than Appreciation!, it still contains only positive comments. I think Pevsner's observation on the tower warrants an appearance; "The architect has not quite made up his mind whether he wanted a dome (like those of the Greenwich Hospital) or a tower".{sfn|Pevsner|Radcliffe|1967|p=314}. It would also be interesting to know what George Gilbert Scott's criticism was.{sfn|Wrathmell|2008|p=17} Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of Scott's book but will try to find out.
  • Pevsner tower quote added, but decided to change two Wrathmell PAG cites straight to the Pevsner 1959 original as everything is from what he said originally anyway. I don't know which book Scott wrote. R
References
  • Cite 6 - p number?
  • Cite 13 - self-published by Lulu. Doubt it meets RS.
  • Cite 14 - p number?
  • Cite 23 - p number?
  • Cite 51 - p number?
  • Cite 62 - not RS.
  • Cite 75 - better source?
  • Cite 79 - Paid subscription required tag needed.
  • Need to find copies and check cites 6/14/51. 23 & 79 sorted. 62 removed. Added Linstrum to strengthen 75. R
  • Page numbers added for the books. R
Bibliography
  • ISBNs - you've a mix of 10 and 13-digits. I think the convention is one or t'other.
  • All ISBNs standardised to 13-digits and hyphenated per WP:ISBN. R
  • I probably would use the Pevsners, just to show that it's comprehensive.

Summary You've done a great job of covering the relevant material and it is an impressive first FAC. I wouldn't be able support currently, as there are too many issues. They are all fixable and if you're able to do that here, great! As mentioned at the outset, I do think Peer review is really helpful for FACs. It can be a bit slow, but when it works you get the benefit of multiple eyes/opinions, without the spotlight of FAC. Let me know if any of the comments need clarification. All the very best. KJP1 (talk) 12:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed almost everything you've pointed out here with replies for each. Hope it's satisfactory! Rcsprinter123 (articulate) 01:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt, and comprehensive, responses. Can’t pick them up today, but will tomorrow. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies - Life is intervening. I will get back but it won't be before next week. KJP1 (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First, really sorry for the time this has taken. Second, many thanks for your full responses. As I said above, it's a fantastic effort, especially since it's your first FA. But I'm afraid I still can't currently support as, for me, there are too many instances of remaining, mainly prose/colourful language, issues. I appreciate we may well disagree on this, and it may be that other reviewers also won't agree with me. I wish you all the best with this, and with your future FAs. KJP1 (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your reasoning and have learned lots. I just don't seem to have the capacity to alter the language sufficiently to more neutral prose without losing intended meaning and nuance - other, more experienced and skilled writers/copyeditors will be able to look at it with fresh eyes and make the kinds of changes needed, and I will make sure this is carried out before any future FAC on this article if it doesn't pass this time. Rcsprinter123 (articulate) 20:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Harry edit

Welcome to FAC. Nice to see you here, RC, and lovely to see some more English architecture here. I've only read the lead and skimmed the rest so far. I'm not seeing any major spanners in the works but I have few nits to pick:

  • The Headrow (formerly Park Lane), Leeds, West Yorkshire, England: I like to make location descriptions slightly more prosaic than just a list of locations and administrative entities. I'd go with something like "in Leeds, northern England" or "in Leeds, West Yorkshire, in the north of England". It's a bit more wordy, but much nicer to read in my opinion.
  • Citations in the lead are generally unnecessary because the lead should be a summary of what follows.
  • The Town Hall held the title longer than any other building, 108 years just for flow, I would merge this into the previous sentences. Short sentences like this can be jarring for the reader.
  • As of 2017 it is the thirteenth-tallest building in Leeds Is 2017 the last time this was updated or when the most recent taller building was erected?
  • I agree with Kevin above that I would put the design before the history, but it's up to you to consider.

I'll be back. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you back, Harry. Just to clarify your last bullet - if you're agreeing with me, you want History followed by Description. If you want it the other way round, you're with RC. KJP1 (talk) 18:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kevin, always nice to see you; wish real life allowed more time for Wikipedia stuff! Apologies for the confusion; yes, I'm agreeing with you—I'd put the history (or at least the pre-opening history) before the description. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your welcome. Sorry, I think I will go with the convention of keeping the location slightly listy, because making the changes you suggest because I can't make a sentence which keeps all the elements of Leeds, West Yorkshire, England (WY is important) but doesn't get too long and weird. I took out the cite in the lead and merged the sentence. I've updated the tallest year to 2020 since according to this source a taller building is here this year. Would it be worth putting the height info somewhere in the body so it can be cited? Finally, on the section ordering, I will hold it as it is (the more logical way in my opinion) unless it becomes a dealbreaker on the FAC. Rcsprinter123 (pronounce) 20:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • presented to the Council as the gift of the then-Mayor Sir Peter Fairbairn "then" is unnecessary (it goes without saying that political offices change hands), and when was it presented? Contemporary to the town hall being built or at some later date?
  • Removed "then"; and it was presented at time of opening as the source date indicates. Added a few words to reflect this. R
  • Although many departments have been relocated might be worth elaborating here. I'm sure, as with most cities, the council now occupy a more modern building with greater capacity. Perhaps we could mention that building(s), especially if it's interesting or notable and give an idea of how much of the council is left in the town hall? It helps give a picture of the changing use of the building.
  • Agree that info should be included. Other buildings now mentioned but can't find which particular departments are located where. R
  • Is the building still used for meetings of the full council, or do those take place elsewhere now?
  • CH noted as meeting place. R
  • "famous old cities whose Town Halls are the permanent glory of the inhabitants and the standing wonder and delight of visitors from a distance You need a reference straight after a direct quote. I know there's a reference after the next sentence but you need one straight after the quote (there's a policy shortcut for it but I can't locate it at the moment; apparently I've forgotten some things during my break!).
  • Likewise "unwise and inexpedient to proceed with the Hall" and several other examples throughout.
  • Extra citations added where needed. R
  • the relatively modest budget at this time attracted ridicule "at this time" is redundant and can just be trimmed; attracted ridicule from where?
  • The derision's origins are not mentioned in the source. R
  • Cubitt's King's Cross train shed should be full name on first mention.
  • Done. R
  • it now appeared determined that nothing was too good for their Town Hall That's a bold statement to make in Wikipedia's voice. Is that from the source?
  • It is adapted from the source, but "appeared" is added to weaken the assertion. Change, remove? R
  • "splendidly furnished" needs to be attributed to the person you're quoting.
8Done. R
  • I would suggest breaking up the "building works" subsection into two subsections, just for readability. It's quite a long section and looks quite daunting.
  • I've thought of this previously but not decided on an appropriate place to split it. I've put all the bits that are about changes to the design in their own subsection. R
  • 'a practical engineer' Generally it should be double quote marks ("") per the MoS, and the quote needs attributing; it's not for Wikipedia to tell the reader that the engineer was practical.
  • Done. R
  • Nowhere in the body do you mention its listed status or what that means.
  • This is mentioned in the 20th century section. R
  • You should cite the NHLE entry to satisfy 1c. From a quick skim it sadly doesn't contain much appreciation but it can be used as an extra reference for some of the architectural details. It also mentions a fire in 1991 that isn't mentioned in the article.
  • It's already used multiple times, ref [2], but I put a couple more in for some details, and mentioned the fire. R
  • Have you looked at the more recent editions of the Pevsners to see if they have a more detailed appraisal? Kevin might be able to help you with that.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rcsprinter123: just in case you hadn't seen this. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delays in responding this week. I’ll be getting to this soon. Real life, etc. Rcsprinter123 (parlez) 15:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK - changes and replies have been made now. Rcsprinter123 (report) 00:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good to me. The only quibbles I have outstanding are in-text attribution for "splendidly furnished" and "a practical engineer" (see MOS:QUOTE, § Attribution). Also, you now need a ref at the end of the "description" section above "sculpture". And my mistake on not spotting the mention of listing; I still think it needs a little more detail (also Historic England didn't exist in 1951) so I was bold. If it was up to me, I might move it into the appraisal section but that's not based on the FA criteria. Is there any more info on the fire? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't find any mention online of the fire so all we have is that small amount of info from HE. On the end of the description section, I have added a Civic Hall council chamber source. Those two quotes are referenced directly after. I think the listing would fit well in either 20th C or Appraisal, but I may leave it where it is. Rcsprinter123 (notify) 16:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The references for the quotes are perfectly in order, it's the attribution that's needed—those two quotes are opinions, so we need to state in the text who they belong to (see the MOS subsection I linked to). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry Harry, I overlooked that you indeed put "in-text attribution" in your comment. I have added a name for the "splendidly furnished" quote, but elected to remove "practical engineer" as a quote as I think introducing it as an opinion would be to make things needlessly complex. Rcsprinter123 (articulate) 20:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. It's second nature if you spend a lot of time at FAC but I wouldn't expect a first-time nominator to know the MoS inside out and back to front (there are 21st-time nominators who don't). I agree with Kevin and Josh that some of the prose is a bit too ... flowery. Some of it is just stylistic preference but some of it is bordering on editorialising. Since this is preventing them from supporting, I'll take another pass through the article with a finer comb over the next few days to see if I can make it more readable and less flowery. Feel free to revert any of my edits if they introduce problems and we can discuss here or on the talk page if need be. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does baroque in imaginative power and drama mean? And that's a prime example of the sort of language Kevin and Josh are talking about; if it's a quote from the source, we need to attribute it and cite it, but I'm not entirely sure what it means in the first place. Will list other concerns below.
  • Be consistent in whether you use the Oxford comma or not (my preference is for, and the article mostly uses it, but I think I spotted a few inconsistencies).
  • has been described as "a remarkably assured and individualistic design Quote attribution again.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK. No problem with any of your copyedits apart from the {{who}} tag, which I did check in the source but offers no more clue, it's just an anonymous quote. On the "baroque..." sentence, I think it's just one of those parts from earlier revisions which I've not been very good at cutting, it's not a quote as far as I can find. When you point out that it doesn't really mean much it's easier to see the general point about language. Rcsprinter123 (proclaim) 15:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I've changed the sentence at the start of Description, added some more commas for the Oxford style, and attributed the quote. Rcsprinter123 (gossip) 22:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. After my copy edits, I believe the prose now meets 1a, and all my other concerns (including the few quibbles I picked up while copy-editing) have been addressed. This a well put-together, thoroughly researched article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Parklanemap1847.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Parkhousemap1852.jpg, File:Leeds_town_hall_first_drawing.jpg, File:Design_for_Leeds_Town_Hall,_1854_-_Cuthbert_Brodrick.jpg, File:City_Hall_Philadelphia.jpg, File:Engraving_of_Bolton_Town_Hall_1873.jpg, File:Portsmouth_prewar_guildhall.jpg
  • File:Official_Order_of_Procession,_page_1_-_Leeds_Town_Hall_foundation_stone.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • File:Leeds_Town_Hall,_General_Election_results.jpg needs a US PD tag, and I don't understand the note on authorship?
  • File:Leeds_Town_Hall_cleaning.png: the current copyright tag does not explain why the photo itself would be PD
  • File:Parliament_House_Melbourne,_1890_Mitchell_Library_ref_PXE_800_photo_33b.jpg: for the purposes of Wikipedia, faithful reproduction of a 2D work does not garner a new copyright. What's the copyright status of the original print? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we can know where the images were first published, due to their age. Is this a requirement in the image information? What's the Commons parameter for it? Added US-PD tags. Not sure why tag doesn't cover cleaning photo adequately? I have no idea on the Melbourne picture. Rcsprinter123 (interview) 14:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the cleaning photo, the tag explains that "photographs of buildings are normally allowed if the building is old enough to be public domain" - freedom of panorama, which allows us to ignore the possible copyright protection of the building. However, the photo of the building is still potentially copyrighted, so we'd need a tag explaining why it's free.
  • Many of the images have a tag claiming the image is free because "it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1925." That tag can only be used if we can confirm that publication in that timeframe actually happened. There's not a separate parameter for it but it's needed to confirm the validity of the tagging. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basically for most of them we need a publication date before 1925. The cleaning photo may need to be removed if there's no applicable tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we know they were created before 1925, but like I said, their original place of publication is unknown (having come off websites), so how can I give any dates? Rcsprinter123 (interview) 17:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Gerbis edit

This is just an aside as I don't see any reference to it in the article. Jonathan Meades has made a film documentary on Cuthbert Brodrick in which he talks about Leeds Town Hall at length in his inimitable idiosyncratic way: The Case Of The Disappearing Architect first broadcast in 2007. Just thought you might be interested. Gerbis (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gerbis - I'll give this a watch and see if anything useful is within. Rcsprinter123 (report) 00:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Johnbod edit

On first skim:

  • The article is fairly long, & the lead far too short at 2 paras, neither long. You should use the full 4 paras suggested by WP:LEAD to summarize parts of the article not yet covered. Remember this is all many (most?) readers will read.
  • I think you are right to have the relatively short description above the very long "history".
  • Generally seems nearly there.
  • A bit of spice from Jonathan Meades would be helpful indeed.

Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for offering your thoughts. I have expanded the lead to 4 paras by including a very potted history and some other general info. I'll see about a Meades quote or two as well. Rcsprinter123 (pronounce) 20:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Hi, with extensive commentary but only one declaration of support for promotion after around seven weeks, this is looking more like a Peer Review than a FAC, so I'm inclined to archive it and recommend further work take place away from the FAC process. That said, can I just get a quick sense from KJP1, John M Wolfson, J Milburn, Nikkimaria and Johnbod as to how things look to you at this point? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree with John's comment. The article has definitely much improved through this process; I'd recommend getting a few people to work through the prose without the time pressure of a FAC and then bring it back in a couple of months. I spotted some issues with a quick (5 minute) glance through (though I do think the issue of rhetoric has been mostly resolved) so I can't really support promotion. The things I'm seeing are very tiny (I made some quick fixes, but I do think the use of the Oxford comma remains inconsistent) but are enough to say that doesn't have the level of polish we'd be looking for. In case I haven't said it already, I'm taking part in the WikiCup. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I forgot about this. I'll try to get to it in the next 48 hrs, & can't rule out supporting, probably after some quibbly points. Does that help? Johnbod (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that I am open to revisiting, but can't promise that I'll find a few hours to sit down with it any time soon. I want to stress that I am not opposing. (Sorry if I'm giving mixed messages - I think it's a great article, I'm just not confident that it's there yet.) Josh Milburn (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve re-read it twice today and I’m still of the view that, while a great first FAC, it’s not quite at the FA standard. To give a single example - “The town hall is classical in style but suggestive of power and drama”. Is Neoclassical architecture not capable of exhibiting “power and drama”? And says who? If this were a quote, I’d be absolutely fine, subject to attribution, but it’s not given as such. I am certain this will be an FA, and I look forward to supporting, but I’m not there yet. KJP1 (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the way the way consensus is leaning on this, even though Johnbod has not come back to us yet, and that is not for promotion at this point. I was optimistic about the article’s chances at nomination but the issues regarding language were larger than I was able to see. I still intend for it to be improved and promoted though, and will submit it for peer review and seek suggestions from the local wikiproject before any further FAC (or GA) nomination. Rcsprinter123 (rap) 01:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Leeds_Town_Hall/archive1&oldid=953157824"